On 17 June 2011 14:11, Henry Gomersall <h...@cantab.net> wrote: > Well, since the contributor terms are an agreement made as a > contributor, one is not necessarily making any statement about the > compatibility of OS open data
I'm sorry, but if you've used OS OpenData in previous contributions, that's precisely what you are doing by agreeing to clause 2. > - one could lie, or think its fine, or I'm afraid I don't find a community that asks its members to sign something knowing that it it likely to be false to be a very healthy community to be part of. If it's believed that OS OpenData should be kept in OSM, then we should amend the CTs to make it clear that it can be. > simply take a pragmatic view that current licenses are fine and someone > else can worry about it further down the line if and when it becomes a > problem, with a reasonable assumption that the OSMF aren't going to sue > (I assume that's who the agreement is made with?). But the whole point of clause 2 in the current CTs is to ensure that we only have to worry about this compatibility issue once, and don't have to come back to it with every license change. It's within OSMF's powers to amend the Contributor Terms to remove the requirement to guarantee future license compatibility if that is what they / the community wished to do. Given that they have not done so, one has to assume that they don't wish people to sign if they cannot give that guarantee. It's therefore not helpful to the community if people sign to agree to something that isn't true. If lots of people have been doing this, then it makes clause 2 rather pointless, and is even more of a reason to remove or amend it. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
